This article seems to be closer to the motherboard section. But, as
I once mentioned, tests of just a professional accelerator do not give
a complete idea on performance. The overall system performance is very
important. Besides, in many CAD/DCC programs the final scores greatly depend
on amount of memory installed, processor's speed and the number of processors.
That is why the today's tests will involve all our professional accelerators
and one more thing ;-).

The objective of the today's test is to study scalability of the professional
accelerators. Secondly, we will find out what platform suits better for
professional use. Finally, we will show how important an appropriate approach
is when assembling a computer meant for CAD/DCC applications.

Without further ado let's have a look at the tools and test system configurations.

The NVIDIA based cards were tested with the latest official available version
- 4041.

The 3Dlabs Wildcat VP870 ran under the ver. 0423. The VP870 was estimated
both in the maximum geometry mode and in the maximum texture one.

The Parhelia was used with the drivers 1.1.0.80.

The RADEON 9700 was tested under the ver.6159.

The RADEON 8500 was tested under the ver.6118.

Test system configuration

The testbeds are based on the following Intel Pentium 4 platforms:

Platform 1:

ASUS P4T533 motherboard

Intel Pentium 4 2.533MHz

Seagate Barracuda 4 ATA100 80GB hard drive

32-bit 512MB RDRAM PC4200 (533x2MHz)

Platform 2:

ABIT SR7-8X motherboard

Intel Pentium 4 2.533MHz

Seagate Barracuda 4 ATA100 80GB hard drive

512MB DDR400 PC3200 (400MHz) or 512MB DDR333 PC2700 (333MHz)

A tested accelerator is inserted into the test system, then and the Windows
XP Professional OS is installed anew, as well as the Service Pack 1. After
that we install all necessary drivers and SPECviewperf.

In the first part we will take a look at the results and compare the
cards that we know quite well with the new-comers.

The Matrox Parhelia and ATI's Radeon 9700 and Radeon 8500 are new in
this test. One more interesting participant is a card working with the
altered driver for professional accelerators from ATI - so called SoftFireGL
8800. I didn't use in the test junior models of professional cards from
NVIDIA, as their capabilities were revealed last time when we tested them
on the 2.2GHz CPU based platform, but I left here the junior ATI FireGL
2 as its potential is not uncovered entirely. This test will show whether
it makes sense to use this card in future.

We used the Matrox's card as it has a proper price and the company released
professional-oriented drivers.

The gaming card Radeon 9700 is used as it's the fasted solution on the
gaming market, that is why it's interesting to examine it from a professional
standpoint. Besides, ATI has already announced a professional card based
on its new chip, that is why we can use the scores of the Radeon 9700 to
get an idea on a performance level of the professional model.

The hacked version of the FireGL 8800 card is used as it's based on
the RADEON 8500; hence the question what differs the professional solution
from the gaming one apart from the special drivers price. As you know,
the difference between the NVIDIA's models doesn't justify the price gap.
And later we will see whether ATI has it the same.

The other cards need no comments, so, let's dive into the tests.

First of all, let's test the cards based on the Intel's platform.

The first test that emulates operation in the 3ds max shows that:

1) The fastest card is NVIDIA Quadro 4900 XGL. The only solution
that is able to compete against it is its brother - SoftQuadro.

2) The FireGL 8800 is edged out by the gaming card Radeon 8500. The
difference between the altered FireGL 8800 and the original one is greater
than between the Radeon 8500 and SoftFireGL 8800.

3) The Radeon 9700 is the fastest solution among the ATI's cards, but
it's not the champion in this round. It's not because of the system or
the processor or something else. It's caused by the card itself or by the
drivers which are still raw or badly optimized for professional applications.

4) Matrox, Parhelia... A very powerful subsystem for 2D. And it's also
very weak subsystem for 3D when the 3ds max engine is used. Well, it's
a pity because the card is modern.

The new test doesn't change much, but the altered FireGL 8800 outscored both
the original FireGL 8800 and the RADEON 9700. I'm arrived at the conclusion that
companies should launch a single GPU version and position cards for different
market segments by means of different drivers. And the cards should sell at equal
prices. It will be cool for users but awful for manufacturers as they are going
to lose much on selling professional solutions. Moreover, I'm inclined to think
that the companies are now receiving super-profits in this sector.

The most expensive NVIDIA's card keeps on reigning on the top of the Olympus.
When the NV30 based professional model comes onto the scene the situation might
change.

The results of this test do not coincide with the real situation. When I just
started testing with the seventh version of the SPECviewperf I said the test was
very processor-dependent where an accelerator "doesn't have many shares".

Well, the Matrox's card deserves just a requiem... As for the rest, the outcome
is the same.

The fact that the SoftQuadro has worse results than the original card means
that the gaming card lacks some blocks in the chip, which is fair. And it's different
in case of the SoftFireGL - it outdoes even the original FireGL 8800.

Card scalability

To examine scalability of the cards I used data from the last test in the
SPECviewperf on the Intel Pentium 4 2.2GHz based platform. But remember
that last time we carried out the tests with another driver version, and
the operating system wasn't supplemented with the Service Pack 1. However,
it shouldn't affect the outcome much.

Here is the test stand:

Intel Pentium 4 2200 (L2=512K);

ASUS P4T-E (i850) mainboard;

512 MB RDRAM PC800;

Quantum FB AS 20GB hard drive.

Scalability was tested on the following cards: ATI FireGL 2 and FireGL 8800,
NVIDIA Quadro 4 900 XGL, NVIDIA Quadro DCC, 3Dlabs Wildcat VP870. I think these
cards have the best prospects for today, and scalability will unveil the future.

The NVIDIA's models are excellently scalable. The faster the CPU the greater
the potential of the cards.

The ATI's cards do not look so great. The FireGL 2 works at its breaking
point. The FireGL 8800 has some "strength margin".

The VP870 is weakly scalable. I suspect that an ideal processor for
this card will be the one clocked at around 2.8 GHz; a more efficient one
will hardly improve its scores as even on this improved platform the speed
gain is not great. However, I may be wrong...

Comparison of platforms and dependence of performance on memory speed

Now let's see how different cards work on mainboards based on non-Intel chipsets.
For comparison I have taken the SIS648 based board for Intel Pentium 4 processors.
The chipset allows using memory running at 333MHz and 400MHz. The memory clocked
at 400MHz is supported unofficially as it has no recommendations and specifications
from JEDEC.

The memory frequency has a weak effect on the results. It turned out that in
the 3ds max the memory's speed is not so important as performance of the processor
and video card. However, as compared with the Intel's chipset, the SIS648 works
a bit slower.

In this test the memory is a weaker link, and 400MHz brings more gain than
333MHz; the RDRAM PC4200 allows for a more performance boost.

The layout is similar to the previous test. The growth of the memory's frequency
allows for a small benefit but even the 400MHz DDR loses to the RDRAM, though
the gap is quite narrow.

This tests depends both on the processor and the memory. The faster memory
brings some benefit.

Here a memory bandwidth is a key factor as the frequency growth results in
very good scores (in this application); besides, the RDRAM PC4200 coupled with
the i850e chipset turns in excellent scores.

On the i850e the cards have higher scores than on the SIS648 with the 400MHz
memory. Nevertheless, the difference is intangible. Growth of the memory frequency
doesn't give much benefit, that is why this test is the least memory-intensive.

As I found out, the SIS648 has the following flaws:

RADEON 9700 couldn't pass the test. The system hung up and rebooted. The
reasons are unknown.

On the VP870, after installation of the drivers and rebooting the system
ceased to load. Here it can be the fault of the drivers.

Parhelia wasn't compared due to its too low speed.

In closing I must say that:

The Intel's platform looks more advantageous for professional use, and
taking into account drawbacks of the SIS648, it looks better as far as
compatibility and reliability are concerned.

If you use the SIS648, it makes sense to use fast memory as there is some
gain.